User:ShelbyJackson/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: How to Queer Ecology: One Goose at a Time by Alex Johnson (How to Queer Ecology)
 * Original cited source from 'Queer ecology' Wikipedia page (link)
 * EBSCO Host link that's not accessible to the reading, but provides more accurate sourcing. How to Queer Ecology: One Goose at a Time was published in Orion Magazine in March/April 2011 in Volume 30, Issue 2, on page 46.
 * Another possible source showing the magazine article was published in 2011 and is related to philosophy, with an accessible link to reading the article. This could confuse the reader and make them think the article is by Oregon State University.
 * I was interested in this topic as a queer woman and environmentalist. I chose this article to evaluate because of my strong interests in topics of gender and sexuality. I also found it relevant to my environmental sociology class discussions on how we decide was is natural, not natural, human, and/or nature. Especially class topics where we discussed how colonialist mindsets have created a privileged group of people who have bias over what is and isn't considered "nature" or "natural".

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. It's not clear at first because the lead is not organized in chronological order of the article sections. The lead is organized in the following order: author's first impression of nature writing, author's philosophical nature writing questions from a queer perspective, the main idea of the article: stating how nature/human split dichotomy in traditional nature writing is problematic and recommending a new perspective, and the author digesting cited-source research from his perspective as a queer man in a homophobic-biased culture.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, and clearly organized with spacing between how the concepts connect to the main idea of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Not completely. It's still relevant content, but it could use more updated information on how the privileged affect other underrepresented human populations' connection's to nature, especially with evolving recognition of POC experiences.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No relevant content missing. It could be updated to expand on recognizing POC experiences.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. Not only does the author talk about the main subject of queer populations being affected by heteronormative biases, but he also recognizes other underrepresented groups such as POC, women, and economically disadvantaged (see Step #4 and #5) are affected by privileged biases.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * Is the article neutral? Not completely. He uses a neutral tone to ask questions about human/nature dualisms, but he also clearly states his biases when dissecting the subject and materials.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Slightly. The queer male experience is given more representation than the queer women's experiences or queer POC's experience. A variety of underrepresented groups are acknowledged in the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The author is against homophobic rhetoric that homosexuality is unnatural. Some could see this as a biased claim coming from a queer man, but the claim is backed-up with proof such as geese, squirrels, and dolphins in homosexual relationships.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

'Additional links could be added when citing the source on the 'Queer ecology' wikipedia page. Possible links listed above.'
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most are. Literature is clearly cited, but sources on Branta canadensis and Eugen Warming are not clearly found.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? This publication was originally posted in a magazine, not on this website. Authors of literature are cited by name, but links aren't provided.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are not "current", but historically relevant literature is cited.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The author is a historically marginalized individual evaluating homophobic literature.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links are not available. The names of authors and the books they wrote are clear. A clear link to secondary sources on Branta canadensis and Eugen Warming's definition of ecology is listed without a link to the secondary sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. The article includes one image to increase reader interest but does not enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Sadly, not much conversation is going on behind the scenes on this talk page. It was last updated on May 17, 2019, and hasn't been rated well.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This Wikipedia page is rated C-Class by all the participating WikiProjects. This means that the article is okay, but needs more participation to fix errors and add more information/sources. The Wikipedia is rated Low-importance for the following WikiProjects: Philosophy, Ecology, Environment, and Feminism. It is also participating in the LGBT studies and Visual arts WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article recognizes historically underrepresented population as we do during our lecture, but goes heavily in-depth on the queer experience. This topic might be difficult to digest if someone doesn't have background knowledge of LGBTQ+ issues or minority populations.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Relevant but there's room for improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths? Strong representation of the queer male experience and historically relevant information that won't stop being relevant. It also doesn't exclude any underrepresented groups and comes from an ad-free journal, Orion Magazine.
 * How can the article be improved? Better citing of sources and more mentions of queer POC.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-development from a historical sense, asking philosophical questions about human/nature dualisms from a queer ecology perspective. However, it could be better developed to include queer POC and improve citing sources.